Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20070613 ASPEN HISTORICPRESERV ATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2007 Holden Marolt..................................................................................................................... 2 332 W. Main Street - Major Development, Final (cont'd public hearing)......................... 4 1000 Matchless Drive - Historic Cabin on Smuggler tennis Property Relocation _ Public Hearing.... '" ... ................... .............................. ............................................................... ...... 6 980 Gibson Ave. - Conceptual, Major Development - Public Hearing............................. 8 300 W. Main - Minor Development................................................................................. 10 ~ I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 Chairperson Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.rn. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Michael Hoffman. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counsel Disclosure: Alison will recuse herself on the Smuggler Cabin relocation and 980 Gibson Ave. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing on the Caribou Alley until June 27th; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Holden Marolt Georgia Hanson, Tom Egan Amy said at the last meeting in March there was a lot of discussion about the needs of the historical society and the sheds were built to cover up an outdoor display. A site visit was done. The design of the shed would have benefited if there was input given. Moving the sheds would be a humongous undertaking. Perhaps a discussion could occur about altering the roof. The salt shed is the main issue. The sheds were built by Robin Ferguson who was a heritage builder and that might be important. HPC needs to determine what guidelines need to be addressed. Georgia Hanson also said she agreed that previous planning would have made the design better for the sheds. If the roof changes to flat it will ad more maintenance than what we have there now. The energy and care and time that is put in by the builders group have to carry some weight. Not a single member has complained about the buildings. I also do not feel it is appropriate to go t City Council and ask them to pay for a mistake that we made. Tom Egan said a mistake was made and it is HPC's purview to do what they want. Most of the solutions that he has heard would be quite expensive and I am not sure the expense would warrant what would end up there. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 Michael asked Jim True if there was a statute of limitation possible with this agenda item. Jim said the code certainly doesn't provide anything and I do not feel there is any statute oflimitation for a violation of this nature. The City has the duty when it discovers something to proceed. Georgia pointed out that the footings were poured 15 years ago. The roof went up six years ago. Jeffrey asked when the second structure was built. Tom said last summer. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda was closed. Michael said what is important is the salt shed. The gabled roof on the shed in front of the salt shed obscures a person ability to interpret from the bike path. As a suggestion a slightly sloping roof or flat roof might improve the visibility of the salt shed. Possibly the City could contribute funds for the proj ect. Brian said the way the shed is built in front of the salt shed really does obscure the historic structure which is unfortunate. If something were done there would be a lot more public appreciation. Some kind of modification to the existing shed to make it coincide with the historic structure. Maybe the possibility of turning the gabled roof 90 degrees so that it is in alignment with the historic structure. Another option is to do a sloping shed roof. Brian also pointed out that this structure has been up for six years and apparently no one has complained about it. Amy said a decision could be made with the understanding that it could be affected by some finding that there is a statute of limitation. Jim agreed that a condition could be put on the recommendation. Alison also said she puts a lot of weight on the fact that there have been a lot of volunteer hours spent on this structure and the fact that there have been no complaints should be taken into consideration. If the shed of the roof could be redirected 90% that would be preferable. We don't want a lot of extra 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2007 expense going into this and we don't have a lot of direction in our guidelines. Sarah said the structures are in place and the campus feeling does not disturb the pattern of grown. She feels they should be kept as is and move on. Jeffrey said he always talks about precedence. The reason we have standards is for the general public as well as the city to abide by the rules. We all have spent time at the Holden Marolt but overall we have a precedent issue. There is always a way to change the roofs and there is an expense involved. The board needs to be active and consistent with our process. Jeffrey said he would like to hear a proposal from the applicants to correct the situation. Sarah asked what precedent are we setting. Jeffrey said like any other process it wasn't a permitted/approved plan. Michael suggested Jim come back with an analysis on the statute of limitation and that the Historical Society come back with a cost basis for changing the roof to a sloping roof. Amy suggested that the honey colored wood be darkened so that they don't look so bulky. Sarah said functionally buildings were built together in a utilitarian application. We should see a conceptual application. MOTION: Michael moved to continue the public hearing to August 8th on the Holden Marolt and for Jim True to come back with an answer on the statute of limitation issue and that the applicant come back with a design alternative; second by Sarah. Motion carried 3-2. Roll call vote: Brian, no; Alison, no; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. 332 W. Main Street - Major Development, Final (cont'd public hearing) Amy said the project is mixed use. There are a few things slightly different from conceptual. The first is that the dimensions of the addition are the same as conceptual but the historic building is a little longer toward the alley than they recognized so there is an overlap. Staff is concerned with the overlap and we didn't require a connector on this project. The addition is 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 now encroaching and invading into the historic form. Possibly the upper floor wall could be pulled back. The other thing slightly different from conceptual is the roof. It end terminates as a shallow flat pitched roof that will not be visible from the street. During demolition staff and monitor and the applicant can come to an agreement on the windows and doors as we need to retain anything that was original. Staff and monitor need to see the proposed light fixtures. The front will be commercial and the back will have two residential units. John Muir, architect pointed out that on the upper floor plan it would be difficult to cut out two feet of that bedroom to pull back the overlap. Sarah asked if the addition got higher. John said the roof is higher and we truncated it with a mansard that goes back to make sure it stays below the ridge line of the historic structure. We have the flexibility to make that lower. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Alison said the overlapping makes it difficult to determine new from old and any color change would help. We approved the size of the stairs but we also approved that the line would be the same as the back of the shed. Maybe the wall can move back somewhat. When the height of the roof comes down that might be sufficient. Sarah said it is unfortunate about the overlap. If there were a reduction in the overall height of the addition to the historic resource, that might take off the stress of the overlapping. Brian said he is not concerned with the overlap. In terms of the two buildings working together it makes them start to somewhat talk to one another. Brian said he appreciates the fact that we don't have to deal with a connector piece. The addition should be somewhat smaller in height and subservient. As long as there is some distinction between old and new the design will work. Jeffrey said the use of the property on Main Street is an excellent way for the general public to view the historic resource. At conceptual the addition felt a little smaller in height. The overlap is a design concern and is technically 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 difficulty. Lowering the flat roof a little might work but the site itself is challenging. Restoring the historic resource back to its original state is commendable. Staff and monitor will look at the final design of the clapboard. Alice Brien, owner said they intend to paint the addition a different color than the historic house. John Muir said they can lower the ridge which will make the new addition more subordinate. Ifwe lower the apparent ridge it will be proportionately a little bit longer. We can lower it 18 inches to 2 feet and make it work. We are prepared to go on record to paint the addition different from the historic house. John said Alice has done a lot on this house; not moving it forward and restoring the house back to its original state. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution 23 for 332 W Main as represented this evening with the following changes: 1. Condition #1 to be amended to read: Reduce the height of the addition to be approved by staff and monitor. Should be more like what was represented at conceptual. 2. Varying treatment of paint color between the historic resource and the new addition. All other conditions in the resolution comply. Motion second by Alison. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-0. Michael abstained. Brian is the monitor. 1000 Matchless Drive - Historic Cabin on Smuggler tennis Property Relocation - Public Hearing Alison recused herself. The applicant was informed that an affirmative vote of 3 is necessary for approval. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Drawings - Exhibit II Sara said the applicant came to the HPC in January 2007 to designate the cabin and ask for approval for relocation. HPC voted in favor of designation 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 and denied the request for relocation. The Planning & Zoning reviewed the project and asked HPC to reconsider the relocation. HPC was amenable to look at another application for relocation with the condition that the plans for redevelopment were presented. A ten foot setback around the cabin is part of the designation. The proposal for HPC is to move the cabin 30 feet west and five feet to the south. They plan on putting a tot lot next to the cabin and there will be two facades of the affordable housing development that will be facing the cabin. Staff applied the criteria for relocation and looked at the new context that the cabin is going to be put into; staff is recommending approval of the relocation with conditions. Conditions: 1. That the cabin maintains the same orientation. 2. Staff and monitor will approve the facades of the new development including materials, details, scale and form that face the cabin. 3. Staff and monitor to approve the landscaping around the cabin and the play area, benches and lighting. 4. The applicant will post an interpretative marker on the property that explains the connection of the cabin to the Smuggler mine. 5. A rehab plan for the cabin be submitted to staff and monitor prior to the approval of the final PUD by Council. Staff suggests that there be an active use for the cabin. John Sarpa said if we get approval for relocation of the cabin it creates a little better spacing. It would also provide a little more safety in that area where the children will be involved. John said they have no problem with HPC being involved with the two buildings adjacent to the cabin. The cabin will be a studio unit. Richard DeCampo went over the design ofthe project. With moving the cabin the site plan will be better. P&Z liked the idea of increased parking. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Michael agreed that any historic context was destroyed long ago. Moving the structure will not destroy the interpretation of the big picture because the big picture has gone away. Michael said he appreciates the fact that a park 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 will be between the building. Michael suggested that a report come back to HPC regarding the rehabilitation plan. Brian said in looking at the overall site plan it does make sense where the new proposed location is because it does celebrate the historic cabin. Brian said he is struggling with justifying any historical integrity of the structure. Ifthere is any historical value it is mostly tied to its current location. Sarah said the site plan is better. The play area should remain passive and not have jungle Jims' etc. in it. There are other open areas on the site where that can happen. Jeffrey also agreed that this is a better site plan. Preservation of the structure to be used as housing is a good reason for land marking it. The buffers presented are good but could be thinned out a little on the North West. The interpretive sign is an excellent way for identification and the meadow open type format helps. The design meets our guidelines Chapter 9 & 11. Sarah said with all the gables facing Park Circle is there an opportunity to direct the roofs differently to make it seem less stamped out. Kim Weil said along Park Ave. the grade is different so the buildings are not all at the same height. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #24 for the relocation of the Smuggler cabin with the addition: #13 the play area adjacent to the historic structure remains passive in use and no active play structures put there #14 Staff report on the results of compliance with conditions 2,3,5. Landscaping plan around the play area and a rehabilitation plan be submitted to the board as an information item. Motion second by Michael. Roll call vote: Brian no; Sarah, yes; Michael, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 3-1. 980 Gibson Ave. - Conceptual, Major Development - Public Hearing Alison recused herself. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Sara said the parcel is located at the base of Smuggler Mountain and it is approximately a 13,000 square foot lot that has been condominiumized. Lot 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 1B recently completed a rear addition to the historic resource and LotlA is before you. The parcel contains an historic 1880 miner's cabin and was moved to the site from an unknown lot. As it currently sits the front faces the side yard. The applicant is proposing an addition to the rear. The cabin will be relocated 90% so the front of the cabin will be facing the street. HPC is asked to review demolition of the non-historic addition and a car port. They are also requesting setback variances and a 221 setback bonus. The project before you will use up all the development rights for this part of the property. Overall the height, scale and the massing are appropriate for this type oflot. They are proposing a horizontal one-story connector piece. Staff pointed out a few concerns: There is a second floor corridor that adjoins the connector piece and we feel the intent of guideline 10.7 is not met which basically says there needs to be some sort of separation in the masses on a historic property. We are recommending that the second floor piece be removed. Also, the location of the garage on the north property line is sitting right on the property line and doesn't comply with the IRC and the applicant has to move the garage three feet off the property line to comply with the building code. We are asking that they just minimize the size of the garage rather than shifting it forward. Rotating the structure 90% is an acceptable preservation method and it will not adversely affect the integrity of the house. They are part of the Alpine Acres subdivision that has a cap on dwelling units and that is why they are requesting 221 square feet which will bring them up to their cap. Setbacks: They are requesting ten feet on the west side yard and 15 is required. They also need a north rear yard setback of 3 feet. Overall staff recommends approval. Scott Bartleet of Flux Design Studio said they are doing a lot split so they do not have any second residence on the property. The FAR is restrictive and it is 2486 square feet. We intend to make the historical cabin prominent on the site and push the rest of the development as far back as we can. We feel we are in accordance with guideline 10.7. You do not see the upper level link at all and we would respectively like to keep that. We can glaze the connector. Scott said the cabin was moved to the site between 1961 and 1964. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 Sarah said she is concerned about the light well. The forms are sympathetic to the historic resource. Moving the entire project over is a good idea. Brian also agreed with Sarah. Michael said he is relying on the representation of the applicant that the second story connector will not be seen from the cabin. Scott indicated that there is a lot of vegetation on the site and it would not be visible in the summer. Jeffrey commended the restoration project. There are a lot of issues regarding the variances and the lot is challenging. We need to make sure the variances are correct. The architecture is respective of the historic resource. Sarah said the board needs to understand what is going on with the variances. The architecture is going in the right direction. MOTION: Michael moved to continue 980 Gibson until June 27th; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. 300 W. Main - Minor Development Alison was seated. Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I Photo of pier/cement - Exhibit II Photographs Exhibit III and IV Sara said basically the applicant is before HPC to fix the damage that was done on the landmark. There are a few issues that need to be decided tonight and the rest of the application is to restore the cabin. HPC needs to determine whether you want the columns to have the bark on them or not. Another issue is whether or not the two front columns should be replaced. HPC needs to determine the method of repairing the columns; how they are going to meet code and how the columns site on a concrete footer that is exposed. Sara went over the different options and suggestions as pointed out in the memo. HPC also needs to think about a long term plan for mitigating the water runoff from the cabin. Michael commented that the maintenance decisions should be handled by staff and monitor who are familiar with the different techniques. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 13,2007 Jeffrey said we need to make sure the restoration and repair techniques are proper. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jeffrey said Michael's suggestion that some of the architectural details could be flushed out by staff and monitor is appropriate. The waterproofing and flashing and further deterioration are issues that could be addressed in the maintenance plan. MOlTON: Michael moved to approve Resolution #25; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Jeffrey is the monitor. MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Sarah. All infavor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.rn. -:r:::V~L,~ A Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11